Subject: RFC 1434 and IBM 6611 Differences

From: "R. C. (Roy) Dixon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 11:02:12 EDT

Reference:  Note from Scott Adams to Steve Klein (10 September 1993)

Hi Scott, this is Roy Dixon.  I would like to respond to your concerns
raised in the recent note to Steve Klein.

At the last SIG meeting, it was decided that RFC 1434 was to be the base
for future discussions, not the IBM 6611 implementation.  Now I was not
able to attend the meeting, but I have been told that this was the ground
rule that was adopted.  In fact, it is my understanding that we were
specifically directed by the SIG members not to do provide an update to
RFC 1434.  This means that the IBM 6611 is just another implementation
that needs to comply with the revised RFC specification.

Any notes submitted about the IBM 6611 implementation should be taken
as proposals for further refinement of RFC 1434.  We have attempted to
answer all questions relative to specific implementation details, but
this has become a significant task due to the number of questions
and the need to respond to other work-related pressures.  Many of the
questions have addressed implementation details that are not required as
part of the RFC to ensure interoperability.  However, these questions
have been answered in order to give the SIG members better appreciation
of the concepts behind the IBM 6611 implementation of DLSw.

In addition, there exists a few implementation specifics relative to the
IBM 6611 that follow RFC 1434 but include details that we would like
to see changed in the revised RFC.  We plan on working with the SIG in
documenting these revisions.  As we develop proposals for such changes,
we will be submitting them to the SIG for consideration.

So I believe your concerns about IBM trying to control the SIG should
be dismissed.  Given that the SIG members have adopted RFC 1434 as a
starting point, I consider that our involvement with the SIG is like
participating in any other standards activity.  Our control over the
revised RFC is no different than that of any other vendor that actively
participates with the SIG.

Regards, Roy

---

From: Gilbert Moineau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 08:58:00 PDT

Roy,

>>that needs to comply with the revised RFC specification.

That's right, we said the base should be the RFC1434, but we thought 
supporting the RFC1434 would be enough to get the interoperability with the 
6611. If someone claims compliance to RFC1434, the customers will expect 
interoperability with the 6611. I think any missing information in the rfc, 
if it is mandatory to the interoperability with the 6611, should be provided 
to the SIG. For example, the 6611 has a flow control mechanism on a per 
circuit base, not described in the rfc.  If IBM is not willing to do it, 
then they should publically announce that supporting the rfc1434 is not 
enough to get interoperability with the 6611. We must avoid to confuse the 
customers with too many "standards" flavours.

                                        regards,

                                        Gilbert Moineau
                                        Eicon Technology